Jared Taylor prevented from attending Scandza ForumLetter from Zurich Airport
Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, March 29, 2019
I have been banned from Europe and will be deported tomorrow.
March 29, 2019, Zurich
Dear Friends in Stockholm, Turku, and around the world,
I am sorry to have to tell you that I cannot attend the Scandza Forum in Stockholm or the Awakening Conference in Turku, Finland, where I had been invited to give talks. Today, when I landed in Zurich for a connecting flight to Stockholm, Swiss border authorities told me I have been banned from Europe until 2021. I will spend the night at the airport, and tomorrow I will be deported.
The officer at passport control in Zurich airport had already stamped my passport and waved me through to my Stockholm flight when she called after me to come back. She stared at her computer screen and told me I had to wait. She didn’t say why. In a few minutes, a policeman arrived and told me there was an order from Poland that barred me from all 26 countries in the Schengen Zone.
He said the Poles did not give a reason for the ban, and he asked me what I had done. I said I give talks on immigration, and someone in Poland must not like them. “That makes me a political criminal,” I said.
The officer took me to an interrogation room and asked me about my travel plans. He went off to another room for a while and came back with a form for me to sign, saying that I understood I had been denied entry and was being sent back to the United States. After some more waiting, he fingerprinted me and took my photograph.
He then turned me over to a man in civilian clothes, who took me to a spare, dormitory-like accommodation where I will spend the night. It’s not a jail. People pay the equivalent of $40 to spend the night here if they miss a flight. I am free to walk around the terminal, I can make phone calls and use the internet, and I have a meal voucher that is supposed to last me for the next 12 hours. The officer kept my passport, though, and won’t give it back to me until I board the flight home.
Number 18, my room for the night.
Why did Poland ban me? Last September, I gave a few talks to nationalist groups in Warsaw. The talks went well, so when I was invited to Lithuania and Estonia in February to speak at conferences, I went back to Poland and spoke in Lublin and Warsaw. Attendance was by invitation only, but the Polish police learned about the meetings. They told the organizer that if I broke any Polish hate speech laws, he would be held responsible. They said I was “spreading a totalitarian ideology.”
In both cities, we switched venues for the talks rather than risk having the police show up. The talks were a success, and in Warsaw I also gave two television interviews. I left Poland by plane and assumed the matter was closed; clearly, it wasn’t. My Polish friends say they will try to find out the reason for the ban and try to appeal it.
But what are the Poles thinking? I’m not like Lenin and Trotsky meeting in Paris, plotting to uproot the entire West. I want to keep Poland as it is, the proud and eternal homeland of the Polish people. What I hope for Poland is what a huge majority of Polish people want, and is not much different from the policies of the regime. I am not a danger to Poland; I am its friend, its devoted admirer.
Three years ago, I got a letter from Theresa May, when she was still home secretary. She told me that my views are repugnant and that she had decided to keep me out of her country. Britain is the land of my ancestors, my language, my favorite authors—and now I was an exile. It was a bitter blow.
Just a few minutes ago, I used my meal voucher at the “Montreux Jazz Lounge” in Terminal E. I watched people eating and talking and laughing, and I envied them. They can come and go as they please. Terminal E is a modern, soulless place, but it is still Europe. It is part of that culture, heritage, and people that I love with a desperate, yearning love—to which I have devoted my life—and from which I am banned.
You and I, working together with our European brothers and sisters, we will save Europe. We will save it from every threat from every corner of the world. But our first and hardest task is to save it from itself.
DISSIDENTS THE WEST WORSE THAN THE SOVIET BLOC
FREE SYNDICATION: We are partners not rivals. Reprint our news stories to quickly build your news platforms.
We’re used to Russian, Chinese, Iranian and Saudi Arabian dissidents. However, the most notorious deniers of free speech are found under upturned rocks in the West.
Investigative journalist Julian Assange sought sanctuary in London’s tiny Ecuadorian embassy in 2012. The whistle-blower refuses to be silenced. The Australian has been awarded more than a dozen journalism awards. Once evicted under a dodgy-deal, blackmail and bribery, Assange faces life imprisonment, perhaps a death sentence.
Thanks to a clerical error by the U.S. attorney’s office in Alexandria, Virginia, the existence of sealed criminal charges against the Wikileaks founder has been confirmed.
What is typically left out is that Wikileaks originally released the diplomatic cables in piecemeal form, with names removed to prevent loss of life and minimize harm. It was only after a Guardian journalist’s error led to the full legally edited cables leaking to third parties on the web that Wikileaks also published them. Assange even attempted to warn the office of Hillary Clinton, then U.S. Secretary of State.
In other words, Wikileaks behaved precisely as any responsible journalist would in handling sensitive material should by removing information that could cause harm. The removals stopped only when they became pointless. The Pentagon later admitted under oath that they could not find any instances of individuals losing their lives as a result of being named in Manning’s leaks to Wikileaks.
When it comes to negligence a far stronger case can be made against Hillary Clinton for the way she handled State Department emails. Yet, no criminal charges have been laid against a woman mired in corruption and whose snail-trail lies over a score of corpses.
Assange is being targeted because he dared to challenge the western establishment but he is far from alone. Western governments routinely target scores of news reporting dissidents.
Imprisoned in Germany merely for investigating holocaust related fraud; Ursula Haverbeck (90), lawyer Sylvia Stolz, Music tutor Monika Schaeffer and her brother Alfred Schaeffer. In France, Professor Robert Faurisson, Brigitte Bardot, and Vincent Reynouard. The list of Western dissidents is as long and silent as are the names on the Cenotaph situated in Whitehall.
Any who associated with Julian Assange are pursued. Another well-known dissident is the National Security Agency (NSA) whistle-blower Edward Snowden. It was a time of globalist unease at the power of the internet to undermine authority.
Who would have thought that the highest court in Europe would uphold a case in which a woman was prosecuted for blasphemy against Islam? Who would have thought that Britain, the supposed birthplace of liberalism and the free press would ban an independent journalist from its shores for satirising the same religion?
Who would have thought that Germany, whose living memory of the totalitarian Stasi is just three decades old, would put its largest opposition party under surveillance? Just a few years ago, all three would sound far-fetched. But cases like these have become common as elites in virtually every western country mount a panicked attempt to contain the rise of populism.
A case in point is Tommy Robinson, the British critic of Islam who was dragged through Britain’s courts on fuzzy contempt-of-court charges. Sentenced to an astounding thirteen-month imprisonment, Robinson was eventually freed after a successful appeal. Robinson now awaits a final trial before Britain’s Attorney General. Shaky charges that have been successfully appealed were exploited to persecute a British citizen who was inconvenient to the establishment.
Alison Chabloz is endlessly re-cycled through British courts at the urging of Jewish special interest groups. She has been sentenced, fined and ordered to work for the State without charge.
Her crime, she satirises the spin of World War II propagandists. Again in Britain, Jez Turner is sentenced to 12 months in prison merely for publicly stating that Britain’s regime is overly influenced by Zionists; ironically, Zionists boast much the same thing.
In the self-styled cradle of democracy, one of the last European countries to give voting rights to men and women, Michael Walsh was handed down 6 x 4-month prison sentences for publishing fliers critical of immigration.
Britain routinely bans foreign politicians and media figures from the country for being right-wing. Michael Savage, Geert Wilders, Lauren Southern, Pamela Geller, and Robert Spencer all enjoy this dubious distinction. Theresa May, who was responsible for internal affairs and immigration when Spencer and Geller were banned, is the Prime Minister.
Trump’s White House, supposedly an ally of populists, failed to intervene on behalf of the American citizens banned from the U.K. for expressing populist viewpoints.
Julian Assange, a leftist oriented libertarian may share little ideological ground with right-wing critics of Islam. But they all share at least one thing: persecution by the Western States coupled with anti-establishment political speech or activities.
We also see attacks on free speech, with governments and politicians across the West pressuring Silicon Valley to suppress its critics. These toxic unaccountable, unelected elite can sweep away a person’s livelihood in minutes, and cut their political message off from millions of American citizens. PayPal, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook routinely disconnect the accounts of even small ‘c’ conservatives.
Undeniably, the West is as repressive as was the former Soviet Bloc. Who would have thought that countries like Ecuador, Russia, and Iran would offer sanctuary, safe passage and freedom to speak to Western dissidents; journalists, authors, poets, writers, libertarians and political activists?
Edward Snowden faces life in Russia as an exile for revealing the National Security Agency (NSA) mass surveillance of Americans. Before that, he sought refuge in Hong Kong, a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.
Challenged in Parliament about why criticism of Christianity is taken for granted while criticism of Islam embroils one in societal (and legal) difficulties, British Prime Minister Theresa May answered:
We value freedom of expression and freedom of speech in this country. That is absolutely essential in underpinning our democracy. But we also value tolerance to others. We also value tolerance in relation to religions. This is one of the issues that we’ve looked at in the counter-extremism strategy that the government has produced. I think we need to ensure that, yes, it is right that people can have that freedom of expression. But in doing so, that right has a responsibility, too. And that is a responsibility to recognize the importance of tolerance to others.
This heralds the end of the freedom of speech in Britain, for May’s statement is flatly self-contradictory. Who will decide whether one’s criticism of Islam has shaded over into becoming “intolerant”? Presumably the police or some governing authorities. But the freedom of speech is designed precisely to protect people from being prosecuted or persecuted by the governing authorities because their speech dissents from the accepted line. It was developed as a safeguard against tyranny.
By introducing this massive exception, May is turning the freedom of speech on its head and emptying it of all meaning. She is also implying that the British government will now be bringing the full force of the law against those who are deemed intolerant, and indeed, that has already begun.